Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jen v. City and County of San Francisco

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 15, 2016

KAIMIN JIMMY JEN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO, DENNIS HERRERA, RAFAEL TORES-GIL, MIKE KLOSE and DOES 4-50, Defendants.

          DENNIS J. HERRERA CITY ATTORNEY CHERYL ADAMS CHIEF TRIAL DEPUTY PETER J. KEITH DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY BY PETER J. KEITH ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

          CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT; ORDER [UNOPPOSED] [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3]

          HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (UNOPPOSED)

         Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) respectfully moves the Court to continue the case management conference, set for Tuesday July 19, 2016, at 2 p.m. (per the Court’s Order of yesterday, Dkt. No. 29), to a new date of Tuesday August 2, 2016, at 2 p.m.

         Mr. Jen does not oppose the motion and has agreed with the request. (Exh. A.) The matters to be addressed under Civil Local Rule 6-3 are addressed in the following declaration of counsel. //

         DECLARATION OF PETER J. KEITH REGARDING GOOD CAUSE

         I, Peter J. Keith, declare as follows:

         1. I am a Deputy City Attorney for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, counsel of record in this case for defendant City and County of San Francisco. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.

         2. Yesterday, on July 11, 2016, the Court issued its Order on San Francisco’s motion to dismiss and special motion to strike, which were heard on January 21, 2016. Dkt. No. 29. The Court’s Order of July 11, 2016 also set a case management conference for Tuesday July 19, 2016 at 2 p.m. Id.

         3. Good cause for continuance of the case management conference exists, in that I have a pre-existing calendar conflict on Tuesday July 19. On the following Tuesday July 26 at 2 p.m., I have another pre-existing calendar conflict; furthermore, the Court’s scheduling notes on the Northern District website indicates that the Court is not setting hearings on that date. I am available on August 2 at 2 p.m.

         4. Mr. Jen has agreed to the requested continuance. A true and correct copy of Mr. Jen’s email agreeing to the request is attached as Exhibit A.

         5. There has been no previous request to continue this case management conference. The only prior request to modify a schedule in this case was when San Francisco requested two additional days to file its reply brief, after Mr. Jen’s opposition brief was filed late. Dkt. No. 20.

         6. The requested continuance is not expected to affect any other deadline in the case.

         I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States and of California that the foregoing is true and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.